ᐅ Floor Plan Optimization for a 160 sqm Townhouse, approx. 145 sqm Usable Living Area
Created on: 9 Mar 2022 23:20
P
Pacmansh
Hello,
We have purchased an end-terrace house from a developer and are currently in the phase where adjustments to the floor plan are still possible. The special aspect of this property is that it is not part of a repeated row house design but a unique build, allowing for somewhat more extensive modifications. The developer owns a plot on the outskirts of town, where three houses will be built: two multi-family buildings with condominiums and a block of three terraced houses. We purchased the easternmost one.
Adjustments are only possible inside due to the developer’s setup. The overall form and size of the house are fixed. However, many of the load-bearing walls, windows, etc., can be changed.
Development Plan / Restrictions
Plot size: approx. 270 sqm (2900 sq ft)
Slope: no
Floor space ratio
Built-up area ratio
Building envelope, building line and boundary
Edge development
Number of parking spaces: 1
Number of floors: 2
Roof type: flat roof
Architectural style
Orientation: south
Maximum heights / limits
Additional requirements
Homeowners' Requirements
Architectural style, roof type, building type
Basement, number of floors
Number of residents, ages: 2 adults (40 and 35 years), 1 child (4 years), another child planned
Space needs on ground floor: kitchen / living / dining room, guest bathroom, utility room, storage room, office / guest room
Space needs upstairs: master bedroom, two children’s rooms, bathroom
Office use: limited home office, should also function as a guest room
Overnight guests per year: family lives further away; visits always include overnight stays, at least 2 overnight guests monthly
Open or closed floor plan
Conservative or modern design
Open kitchen, cooking island: yes
Number of dining seats: current dining table is 220 x 100 cm (87 x 39 inches), which works well for us
Fireplace: no
Music/stereo wall: not necessary
Balcony, roof terrace: yes, see floor plan
Garage, carport: no
Utility garden, greenhouse: no
Additional wishes / special features
House Design
Designed by:
- planner from a construction company / architect
What do you particularly like? Why?
I am referring to version 2, as it addressed some previously criticized points. We are quite satisfied with this plan but still have a few issues and hope for suggestions/ideas. Positive aspects:
- two equally sized children’s rooms upstairs
- larger bathroom than in version 1
- larger living/dining area, although it might still need to be reduced due to space requirements
- practical cloakroom solution
- the southern view. Our small garden is here, with a large field beyond it. The nearest tree in this direction is at least 200-250 m (650–820 ft) away.
What do you dislike? Why?
- guest bathroom on the ground floor lacks a shower
- office/guest room is very small
- missing a clear idea where a TV could go (not very important but something we’d like to consider)
Price estimate according to architect/planner:
Personal price limit for the house, including fittings:
Preferred heating system: an air-to-water heat pump will be installed; the exact location is still flexible.
If you must give up, which details/extensions
-can you do without: bathtub in the upstairs bathroom, slightly smaller living/dining/kitchen area, storage room on the ground floor (the only real storage space)
-cannot do without:
Why is the design as it is now?
Version 1 was the original design from the project planner in the sales brochure. We requested a different layout for the heating/utility room, a somewhat less spacious staircase to gain space in the second children’s room, and a larger bathroom. The storage room should also be accessible from the hallway.
This led to the creation of version 2, with which we are fairly satisfied apart from the points mentioned above.
The planning is still somewhat informal at this stage. A formal planning meeting has yet to take place. An architectural firm will be involved to handle the detailed design. I get the impression that as much planning as possible is being done now since the current planners belong to the developer, and the architectural firm to be hired afterward would be “more expensive.” Overall, I must say that both before and after the purchase, our wishes have been fairly well accommodated and much is being made possible. For example, we were granted additional land area, a neighbor’s shed was moved to allow direct garden access, etc. I am not a professional but find the changes between versions 1 and 2 quite substantial for a developer purchase.
What is the most important/basic question about the floor plan summarized in 130 characters?
Do you see a way to create a guest bathroom with a shower and a larger work/guest room? Are there fundamental flaws in the floor plan?
We have purchased an end-terrace house from a developer and are currently in the phase where adjustments to the floor plan are still possible. The special aspect of this property is that it is not part of a repeated row house design but a unique build, allowing for somewhat more extensive modifications. The developer owns a plot on the outskirts of town, where three houses will be built: two multi-family buildings with condominiums and a block of three terraced houses. We purchased the easternmost one.
Adjustments are only possible inside due to the developer’s setup. The overall form and size of the house are fixed. However, many of the load-bearing walls, windows, etc., can be changed.
Development Plan / Restrictions
Plot size: approx. 270 sqm (2900 sq ft)
Slope: no
Floor space ratio
Built-up area ratio
Building envelope, building line and boundary
Edge development
Number of parking spaces: 1
Number of floors: 2
Roof type: flat roof
Architectural style
Orientation: south
Maximum heights / limits
Additional requirements
Homeowners' Requirements
Architectural style, roof type, building type
Basement, number of floors
Number of residents, ages: 2 adults (40 and 35 years), 1 child (4 years), another child planned
Space needs on ground floor: kitchen / living / dining room, guest bathroom, utility room, storage room, office / guest room
Space needs upstairs: master bedroom, two children’s rooms, bathroom
Office use: limited home office, should also function as a guest room
Overnight guests per year: family lives further away; visits always include overnight stays, at least 2 overnight guests monthly
Open or closed floor plan
Conservative or modern design
Open kitchen, cooking island: yes
Number of dining seats: current dining table is 220 x 100 cm (87 x 39 inches), which works well for us
Fireplace: no
Music/stereo wall: not necessary
Balcony, roof terrace: yes, see floor plan
Garage, carport: no
Utility garden, greenhouse: no
Additional wishes / special features
House Design
Designed by:
- planner from a construction company / architect
What do you particularly like? Why?
I am referring to version 2, as it addressed some previously criticized points. We are quite satisfied with this plan but still have a few issues and hope for suggestions/ideas. Positive aspects:
- two equally sized children’s rooms upstairs
- larger bathroom than in version 1
- larger living/dining area, although it might still need to be reduced due to space requirements
- practical cloakroom solution
- the southern view. Our small garden is here, with a large field beyond it. The nearest tree in this direction is at least 200-250 m (650–820 ft) away.
What do you dislike? Why?
- guest bathroom on the ground floor lacks a shower
- office/guest room is very small
- missing a clear idea where a TV could go (not very important but something we’d like to consider)
Price estimate according to architect/planner:
Personal price limit for the house, including fittings:
Preferred heating system: an air-to-water heat pump will be installed; the exact location is still flexible.
If you must give up, which details/extensions
-can you do without: bathtub in the upstairs bathroom, slightly smaller living/dining/kitchen area, storage room on the ground floor (the only real storage space)
-cannot do without:
Why is the design as it is now?
Version 1 was the original design from the project planner in the sales brochure. We requested a different layout for the heating/utility room, a somewhat less spacious staircase to gain space in the second children’s room, and a larger bathroom. The storage room should also be accessible from the hallway.
This led to the creation of version 2, with which we are fairly satisfied apart from the points mentioned above.
The planning is still somewhat informal at this stage. A formal planning meeting has yet to take place. An architectural firm will be involved to handle the detailed design. I get the impression that as much planning as possible is being done now since the current planners belong to the developer, and the architectural firm to be hired afterward would be “more expensive.” Overall, I must say that both before and after the purchase, our wishes have been fairly well accommodated and much is being made possible. For example, we were granted additional land area, a neighbor’s shed was moved to allow direct garden access, etc. I am not a professional but find the changes between versions 1 and 2 quite substantial for a developer purchase.
What is the most important/basic question about the floor plan summarized in 130 characters?
Do you see a way to create a guest bathroom with a shower and a larger work/guest room? Are there fundamental flaws in the floor plan?
We unexpectedly had a phone call with the architect and discussed his current designs as well as the ideas that @K a t j a had “hinted at” in her planning. What he kept emphasizing is that he wants to bring the building services and appliances closer together. So, if the main utility connection is located at the top left, then the bathroom on the upper floor should also be in that corner, and the kitchen on the left side of the house.
He is not very happy with the routing of the pipes from the main utility connection to the kitchen “through” the stairs. Possible options would be either under the floor beneath the underfloor heating (which he prefers to avoid), under the ceiling (not possible in the stairwell area), or on the floor (which might still be acceptable in the stairwell area, I think).
We have now agreed to provide him with suggestions and ideas on Monday so that we can continue with the planning. Today’s conversation was a definite step forward thanks to your input.
He is not very happy with the routing of the pipes from the main utility connection to the kitchen “through” the stairs. Possible options would be either under the floor beneath the underfloor heating (which he prefers to avoid), under the ceiling (not possible in the stairwell area), or on the floor (which might still be acceptable in the stairwell area, I think).
We have now agreed to provide him with suggestions and ideas on Monday so that we can continue with the planning. Today’s conversation was a definite step forward thanks to your input.
K a t j a schrieb:
Yes, I already hinted that Gast and HAR might need to swap places. Although, if you ask me, the architect is a bit over the top. In my opinion, he is very cautious when it comes to building services and structural engineering. I think this is partly just his style, and partly because these are areas that someone else plans and calculates in detail. I can well imagine that he simply doesn’t want to deliver anything that the subsequent planner would then reject and send back.
Therefore, assessments like “he is overdoing it a bit” are very helpful for me.
Pacmansh schrieb:
On the other hand, these are topics that someone else plans/calculates in detail. I can well imagine that he simply doesn’t want to deliver something that the subsequent planner then shakes their head at and sends back.
Therefore, assessments like "he is exaggerating a bit" are very helpful for me. Then please be a little helpful to us as well and explain the division of labor between the different planners (?)
https://www.instagram.com/11antgmxde/
https://www.linkedin.com/company/bauen-jetzt/
Certainly, but please don’t ask me why it is this way.
There is the landowner (an architect (A) and a contractor (U)). They planned the building project together with another engineering firm (B). The architect also runs their own architectural office (C). Before the purchase, my main contact was primarily with the seller (U) and, for inquiries, also with an employee from (C). I understand the setup as follows: (B) and (C) are responsible for project planning, cost estimation, and basically everything up to the sale and subsequent start of construction. However, another architectural office (D) was commissioned for the execution planning and all further steps, and we are currently at the point where (C) wants to hand over the current status to (D) in the best coordinated way possible.
I don’t quite understand why this arrangement was chosen, and the communication paths are therefore complicated. This has also led me to be somewhat distrustful (see my thread on KfW55 for this property), and experiences from acquaintances with other developers have been far from positive. However, if you disregard the somewhat indirect communication channels, the results so far have been consistently very good.
There is the landowner (an architect (A) and a contractor (U)). They planned the building project together with another engineering firm (B). The architect also runs their own architectural office (C). Before the purchase, my main contact was primarily with the seller (U) and, for inquiries, also with an employee from (C). I understand the setup as follows: (B) and (C) are responsible for project planning, cost estimation, and basically everything up to the sale and subsequent start of construction. However, another architectural office (D) was commissioned for the execution planning and all further steps, and we are currently at the point where (C) wants to hand over the current status to (D) in the best coordinated way possible.
I don’t quite understand why this arrangement was chosen, and the communication paths are therefore complicated. This has also led me to be somewhat distrustful (see my thread on KfW55 for this property), and experiences from acquaintances with other developers have been far from positive. However, if you disregard the somewhat indirect communication channels, the results so far have been consistently very good.
Pacmansh schrieb:
I don’t quite understand why the structure was designed that way, and the communication paths have become complicated as a result. It seems your townhouse is not meant to stand out from the other units, as also discussed in the thread https://www.hausbau-forum.de/threads/grundrisshilfe-216qm-efh-mit-einliegerwohnung-doppelgarage.42787/ – and there, in https://www.hausbau-forum.de/threads/wengerter-baugebiet-am-muehlbach-in-mimberg-burgthann-mit-2022-2024.42355/, you can see how confusingly complex a land development scheme can become; in comparison, your situation is “still manageable” 🙂
https://www.instagram.com/11antgmxde/
https://www.linkedin.com/company/bauen-jetzt/
Similar topics